Change Your World-NOT your Body

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

More Scientific Research Deception and Data Fraud

The discovery that the Dutch researcher Diederik A. Stapel made up the data for dozens of research papers has shaken up the field of social psychology, fueling a discussion not just about outright fraud, but also about subtler ways of misusing research data.

 False-Positive Psychology Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant

Some thoughts on academic cheating

And this is the male medical machine whom trans minds places all its faith to solidify their fragile pseudo trans identities. No wonder they remain so lost.

dirt
Share:

25 comments:

  1. Thank you! Thank you so much for this example that psychologists and scientists in general are NOT inerrable. I hope all those people who were commenting on how terrible it is when someone second-guesses mental health professionals on the last topics read this post ^^

    ReplyDelete
  2. the first thing i thought of when i heard of this story was transsexual 'studies'

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. yeah 3:48 we all know about that
    doesn't mean at all that there are 'male' brains in women or vice versa

    ReplyDelete
  5. 4:22, that's a claim not an argument, if you want to argue that I'd love to see your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  6. okay fine, here's an actual argument:

    ONE reason all those brain scan tests do not prove the existence of a male or female brain is because correlation is not causation. Duh.

    The form of the argument used by all those idiotic trans supporters is the exact same invalid form used by evolutionary psychology quacks:

    1. Look! We have a fact! We found a difference between female brains and male brains! And sexism does not exist!!

    2. Because sexism does not exist, we do not have to prove that sexism does not exist. We can just dismiss that alternative explanation for our fact out-of-hand! wheeeeeeeeeee!!

    3. Because sexism does not exist, the only other possible explanation for our fact is that brain sex is innate! wheeeeeee!!

    *Ahem* Logic time: It has long been known that the brain is "plastic" in the sense that life experience will alter the various structures of the brain.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=childhood+trauma+alters+brain+structures&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    The best known study in feminist circles is the research done on cab drivers.

    http://thesoftanonymous.com/tag/taxi-driver-brain/

    It is really not surprising that various demographic populations who have each been consistently exposed to different SETS of life experiences would have those differences appear on a brain scan. Duh.

    Plus, there's more. Those brain scan studies supporting the trans agenda use far too few test subjects AND are deliberately excluding any subject whose brain scan result does not support their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Besides that, it really doesn't make any sense to assume that the hormones which are responsible for creating a penis on the body are the same hormones which are responsible for creating a preference for wearing dresses in the psyche.

    Again, they conflate correlation with causation while disregarding sexism completely. Seriously pathetic...

    ReplyDelete
  8. m Andrea at 8:07 PM, wonderfully said!

    And this:

    "Besides that, it really doesn't make any sense to assume that the hormones which are responsible for creating a penis on the body are the same hormones which are responsible for creating a preference for wearing dresses in the psyche."

    ...is also true. Preference for dresses and other cultural phenomena that compose "gender" how society sees it today cannot be innate, because there are no such objects in nature. Evolution takes longer than a couple of thousands of years. (And I hope nobody will try and bring in Lamarck as an argument now ;))

    So all research on gender differences in the brain that tries to postulate "innate", and not cultural, differences would have to start research on newborns. BEFORE they have seen their mother and/or father, and BEFORE they have been touched by medical professionals for the first time. Because this is, like, the first exposure to culture. Now scientists should try and find such a newborn. LOL

    That being said, there are hormonally caused differences for sure. But I personally don't think they are as big as most people assume. Conform with what Dirt just said in the above post, science is manipulated more often than you would think.

    My guess is that most results which go the "venus and mars" route are produced and/or enforced by "selective researching". Because sexism, it exists everywhere. Also in the researcher's brain.

    And the topic of "venus and mars" is just too popular nowadays. Once again. So it sells.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have no doubt that transsexualism is a lifestyle choice... just like being gay/lesbian is a lifestyle choice.

    And just like female-born transsexuals being helped to accept their femaleness, lesbians can be helped to enjoy having sex with men.

    Agreed?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I have no doubt that transsexualism is a lifestyle choice... just like being gay/lesbian is a lifestyle choice.

    And just like female-born transsexuals being helped to accept their femaleness, lesbians can be helped to enjoy having sex with men.

    Agreed?"

    Female-born transsexuals don't need to accept their "femaleness", except the biological one.

    Social gender is a construct.

    If a female-born transsexual just wears "stereotypically male" clothing, has a "stereotypical male" profession and behaves in a "stereotypical male" way, and feels all "male", everything is a-ok. It IS a lifestyle-choice. Fine.

    It is the health-threatening medical treatment that is wrong in my opinion, like admission of T and removal of healthy body parts. This is not a lifestyle choice. This is self-injury.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Apples and oranges.
    Unlike transsexuals, lesbians do not claim to be something which they physically are not. Their claim is as to who they love, not what they are. Also, there is no damage to lesbian bodies from loving other women, unlike the physical damage to transsexual bodies via transition. Lastly, lesbianism does not hurt other groups by trying to colonize their identity as trans does.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...and if you wonder, dear Anon at 6:20 AM, why there can no actual answer to your really, really weird comparison to "lesbians being helped to enjoy sex with men", then please read your own post again. See what's wrong now?

    Well, in case you don't, here is the explanation:

    NOONE SHOULD BE HELPED TO "ENJOY" SEX WITH ANYONE BY FORCE. THIS WOULD, AFTER ALL, BE RAPE.

    NOONE TRIES TO MAKE A TRANSMAN TO ENJOY SEX WITH MEN (OR WOMEN, OR DINOSAURS) AFTER ALL. OKAYZ???

    Thank you for your kind understanding.

    @Dirt: I know I sound a bit too angry and this is probably already offtopic, this is why I made this a separate comment so you can delete it if you like =/

    ReplyDelete
  13. i'd say just behaving or wanting to behave in a stereotypically male fashion (or even believing that there is such a thing) is also self-injury, just mental not physical (though i guess breast-binding is physical injury too, and from what i understand it has the tendency to deform one's breasts thus making 'top surgery' even more desireable and starting one down the trans road-- gotta take T if i have no breasts, gotta remove all my sex organs if i have a beard now etc)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Doll, you couldnt be more on topic! Anon clearly suggest raping lesbians. I would have deleted that comment, but given how often many of us are ignorantly accused of "hate", we see where the REAL and TRUE hatred of women/lesbians springs from.

    Thank you for calling this sick misogynistic malecentric shit out!

    Same old story, lesbians have and remain hearing from men, all we need is a good stiff cock forced on us.

    WOW!

    dirt

    ReplyDelete
  15. no she waa just using the flawed argument that transmen can learn to love their female selves in the same way lesbians can learn to love men

    ReplyDelete
  16. What you cunts refuse to understand is that we transsexuals have a right to live our lives the way we want to.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Whoever said that all data presented by researchers is true? There are tons of cases in which data is fabricated and numbers are tampered with. There are also people who "replicate" the fabricated data! I think, however, that it is highly unlikely that every study involving trans people is composed of false data.

    ReplyDelete
  18. we 'cunts' aren't trying to take away the rights of you 'cunts.'

    ReplyDelete
  19. "What you cunts refuse to understand is that we transsexuals have a right to live our lives the way we want to."

    Epic fail. That's the best you can come up with? Insults? It makes you look like a raging idiot. You don't realize that by insulting people you harm your own community.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Bee

    Get a life, you stupid cow.

    ReplyDelete
  21. interesting how the insult-hurlers seem to prefer words used to insult femaleness (cow, cunt, bitch, ugly dyke, etc.) telling, rather- indicative of self-hatred when said by ftms

    ReplyDelete
  22. it reminds me of mr garrison on south park when he was a 'woman' for a while & railing against 'faggots'

    ReplyDelete
  23. 3:44 - yeah, sorry I am kind of a 'cunt' - having mastered hypnosis via the written word I can't stop myself controlling the actions of unsuspecting trans folk.

    ReplyDelete
  24. no she waa just using the flawed argument that transmen can learn to love their female selves in the same way lesbians can learn to love men.

    Most excellent way to put that! Thank you very much! Over and over again, trans assume that the shape of certain body parts will indicate the presence of a personality arch-type, as if each difference between various body parts should magically designate a special personality characteristic.

    Which is why I want to know what characteristic they assume is designated by a bulbous South African nose and what characteristic they assume is designated by a narrow Egyptian nose.

    Correlation is not causation, AND racism does indeed influence how racists will perceive the construct of race and ethnicity. Contrary to their wishful thinking, the shape of a bulbous South African noses does not designate any special personality archtype -- and the only person who would make such an offensive claim is a racist moron.

    Yet they repeatedly assume the exact same principle regarding biological sex -- that the shape of a body part determines character. If a person with breasts is supposed to "naturally" prefer expressing stereotypical feminine traits, then is a person with bigger breasts prefer even more feminine??? Hello. It is not the shape of your body parts which determine your character.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I looked at the paper referred to:

    G. Rametti et al. / Journal of Psychiatric Research 45 (2011) 199-204

    What does a favourite of mine (Ben Goldacre, 'Bad Science' column in the guardian) have to say about the oft-reported brain studies?

    http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/brain-imaging-studies-report-more-positive-findings-than-their-numbers-can-support-this-is-fishy/

    The researchers in the spanish paper have the USUAL small numbers (18 FTM, 24 males, 19 females), and before they started, they scanned the whole brain to see which areas seemed to differ according to sex, then focused on those.

    As Ben Goldacre says:
    "But a final, more interesting explanation is also possible. In these kinds of studies, it’s possible that many brain areas are measured, to see if they’re bigger or smaller, and maybe, then, only the positive findings get reported, within each study."

    Seems to me, if you pre-select areas where you seem to have the biggest differences between the male and female controls, then you are giving yourself greater chance that purely BY CHANCE, some other group you choose to measure will lie somewhere in between compared to those SAME controls!

    Think of it like this -- take two groups of people purely at random, and compare shoe sizes, spectacles, choice of jeans etc etc. Test enough different characteristics, and you'll probably find one that by chance BEST distinguishes your two control groups -- say one group tended to prefer blackshoes, the other brown. Now take another random group of people -- I bet you that more likely than not, THIS new group will probably have roughly equal numbers of balck and brown shoe wearers......So, the third group lying in between the other two (or even closer to one than another) doesn't MEAN anything, based on the selection process you did right at the start, in deciding on shoes.

    Another point -- all controls were heterosexual, whereas FTM group preferred women (i.e., would have been classed as homosexual if trans wasn't an issue). But no lesbian non-trans controls.

    As Ben Goldacre says:
    "Brain imaging studies report more positive findings than their numbers can support. This is fishy."

    I also note the New Sci article refers to 'data' about 38% of trans people knowing by the time they were 5 -- SOUNDS dead impressive, until you realise it was analysis of an online artifact (i.e. a BLOG?), or questionaire as adults -- hence all you'll get, if anything, is the trans cult LINE (which is that they knew at age 3 or whatever, which everyone KNOWS by now is the accepted line).

    Same paper makes a mish-mash of gender non-conforming and seems to equate it with transgender (it ONLY reports results from transgender people, and seemingly Ignores the fact that MANY other people also are gender non-conforming and don't end up trans!)

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © The dirt from Dirt | Powered by Blogger
Design by SimpleWpThemes | Blogger Theme by NewBloggerThemes.com | Distributed By Blogger Templates20